JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Sri Vinod Kumar Sinha, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.329/93 by which the appellant Binod Prasad was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. At the same time other two appellants Sheetal Prasad Sinha and Shyam Sunder Lal @ Shyam Sunder Prasad were convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months by the same stretch of pen. 2. Prosecution story in short was that the informant P.W.8 Mahendra Prasad Sinha presented a written report before the Dhanwar police alleging, inter alia, that on 21.2.1993 while he along with his wife, uncle in law Tripurari Lal were going to Dhuraita at about 7 a.m., he came across the accused persons total six in number including the appellants, who started assaulting them with rod, sticks, and spear. Upon witnessing the occurrence the father of the informant Baldeo Prasad Sinha arrived at the scene and intervened, but the appellants assaulted him also. On the alarm, the witnesses including one Beni Mahto arrived there and pacified the matter but the injured were removed. On the written report, Dhanwar P.S. Case No.17/93 was instituted against as many as six named accused persons and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against all of them for the alleged offence under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that a counter case was lodged by the appellant Binod Prasad Sinha giving rise to Dhanwar P.S. Case No.18/93 in which police submitted charge sheet against the witnesses of the instant case as accused for various offences. The injured informant Mahendra Prasad Sinha was examined by P.W.6 Dr. Arvind Kumar and several injuries were found on the different parts of his body including upon his scalp. All the six accused, namely, Basant Lal, Sheetal Prasad Sinha, Shyam Sunder Lal, Jagdish Prasad, Surendra Lal and Binod Prasad were put on trial after framing of charge under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/307 of the Indian Penal Code. Arvind Kumar and several injuries were found on the different parts of his body including upon his scalp. All the six accused, namely, Basant Lal, Sheetal Prasad Sinha, Shyam Sunder Lal, Jagdish Prasad, Surendra Lal and Binod Prasad were put on trial after framing of charge under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, upon their trial other three accused Basant Lal, Jagdish Prasad and Surendra Lal were acquitted from the charges, whereas the appellant Binod Prasad was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and other two appellants Sheetal Prasad Sinha and Shyam Sunder Lal @ Shyam Sunder Prasad were convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, on the same set of evidence, the learned counsel pointed out. 3. The learned counsel for all the appellants at the outset submitted that the appellant Binod Prasad, convictedunder Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code remained in custody for 46 days against one year of imprisonment whereas Sheetal Prasad Sinha was in judicial custody for 102 days and Shyam Sunder Lal @ Shyam Sunder Prasad completed his detention in custody for 113 days and in that manner, all the appellants have served out sufficient period of sentence in judicial custody, which needs consideration for their release on Probation of Offenders Act on the sole and consistent defence that the occurrence did not take place in the manner presented by the prosecution for the reason that appellant Binod Prasad had lodged a counter case, giving rise to Dhanwar P.S. Case No.18/93, for the injuries sustained by him at the hands of the witnesses and members of both the parties had sustained injuries. 4. As many as ten witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution and out of themP.W.9 D.N. Razak was the Investigating Officer, P.W.6 Dr. Arvind Kumar had examined the injuries of the witnesses and P.W.8 Mahendra Prasad Sinha was the informant of the case. P.W.7 Baldeo Prasad Sinha and P.W.8 Mahendra Prasad Sinha (informant) claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the alleged occurrence as also the injured witnesses. Appellant Binod Prasad was permitted to depose by the trial Court under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he had produced and proved certain documents, such as, written report(Ext. A), F.I.R. (Ext. B) and formal F.I.R. (Ext. C). 5. Appellant Binod Prasad was permitted to depose by the trial Court under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he had produced and proved certain documents, such as, written report(Ext. A), F.I.R. (Ext. B) and formal F.I.R. (Ext. C). 5. Learned counsel assailed the judgment impugned on the ground that the defence versions produced on behalf of the appellants were not considered by the trial Court so as to find out a true picture of the entire occurrence wherein it was alleged that there was free fight between the parties and bombs were also hurled. It was specifically alleged against the appellant Binod Prasad that he hurled the bomb causing injuries to the informant by its splinters and thereafter the latter became unconscious and was removed to Dhanbad Referral Hospital where he was treated. 6. Defence case that was presented on behalf of the appellants during trial was contrary to the prosecution case. It was stated by the appellant Binod Prasad, who deposed under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on 21.2.1993 while he was irrigating his wheat crops in the field, the witness Tripurari Lal hurled a bomb upon him with the intention to commit his murder and he sustained injuries on his left thigh with the splinters of the bomb and in the same sequence other witnesses Bijay Lal, Mahendra Prasad Sinha, Baldeo Prasad and Surendra Prasad brutally assaulted him with various weapons and that when his father Jagdish Prasad and the witness Sheetal Prasad came to rescue him, they were also brutally assaulted causing injuries on their person. Appellant Binod Prasad further testified that his grandmother Saraswati Devi when tried to intervene and pacify the matter, she was assaulted by them as a result of which she became unconscious. He proved his written report (Ext. A). Appellant Binod Prasad further testified that his grandmother Saraswati Devi when tried to intervene and pacify the matter, she was assaulted by them as a result of which she became unconscious. He proved his written report (Ext. A). Binod Prasad was treated at Dhanbad Referral Hospital for the injuries sustained by him at the hands of the witnesses of the instant case and the learned counsel added that the trial Judge ignoring this aspect, convicted him for the charge under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, exonerating him from the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code without appreciating the evidence on the record and also ignoring the counter version which was corroborated by the injuries sustained by the appellant Binod Prasad in the manner indicated with the attribution of the witnesses. As a matter of fact the trial Judge had given a complete go by to the defence case ignoring that the appellant had also sustained injuries and the prosecution had no explanation to that. 7. Prosecution version in the instant case as depicted and testified by the informant P.W.8 Mahendra Prasad Sinha was that the appellant Binod Prasad had hurled bomb upon the informant and his injuries were examined by P.W.6 Dr. Arvind Kumar who found multiple punctured wound on his person appeared to be caused by explosion of bomb. The materials that were produced during trial against other appellants Sheetal Prasad Sinha and Shyam Sunder Lal @ Shyam Sunder Prasad were that the P.W.7 Baldeo Prasad Sinha sustained injuries on his head, waist, ear and on his left hand inflicted by these two appellants. However, P.W.6 Dr. Arvind Kumar found corresponding injuries on the person of Baldeo Prasad Sinha. Statements of P.W.7 Baldeo Prasad Sinha and P.W.8 Mahendra Prasad Sinha stood corroborated by their injury reports. 8. I find that the Investigating Officer P.W.9 D.N. Razak clearly testified that he found injuries on the person of Jagdish, Sheetal and Binod corroborated by the evidence of the P.W.6 Dr. Arvind Kumar. Yet, no explanation could be accorded by the prosecution as to how these appellants sustained injuries to which the burden was heavy upon the prosecution for the ends of justice. Arvind Kumar. Yet, no explanation could be accorded by the prosecution as to how these appellants sustained injuries to which the burden was heavy upon the prosecution for the ends of justice. I find that the defence has been highly prejudiced and even no question was put to them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to explain their injuries, which gives rise to suspicion that the occurrence did not take place in the manner presented by the prosecution. Besides, a reasonable inference can also be drawn that the prosecution tried to suppress the truth and did not come with clean hands. 9. The learned trial Judge admitted in the judgment as contained in paragraph66 relying upon the testimony of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.7 that the appellants herein had sustained injuries which was corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.9) and the Doctor (P.W. 6) and that the appellant Binod Prasad had sustained injuries appeared to be caused by the splinters of bomb. Injuries were found on the person of the grandmother of the appellant Binod Prasad namely Saraswati Devi which were lacerated injuries on the forehead, upon left eye and on her left arm. The trial Judge appears to have tried to balance by convicting the appellants on the ground that they had sustained simple injuries, whereas the prosecution witnesses of the instant case had sustained grievous injuries in the free right which is indicative that the appellants were convicted mechanically without application of judicial mind and also without weighing the evidence available on the record. None explanation of the injuries found on the persons of the appellants is a ground sufficient to hold that the prosecution suppressed the material fact adversely affected the fair trial of the appellants and that the appellant Binod Prasad had earlier filed a counter case of similar nature. 10. For the reasons stated above, a reasonable doubt is created about the manner of occurrence and the participation of the appellants therein in the manner presented by the prosecution for the alleged charge. 11. 10. For the reasons stated above, a reasonable doubt is created about the manner of occurrence and the participation of the appellants therein in the manner presented by the prosecution for the alleged charge. 11. It is settled law that whenever doubt is created as to the manner of occurrence presented by the prosecution and the participation of the accused therein, it always goes in their favour, as such, after giving them benefit of doubt, all the three appellants, namely, Sheetal Prasad Sinha, Shyam Sunder Lal @ Shyam Sunder Prasad, and Binod Prasad are acquitted from their guilt by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded against them in Sessions Trial No.329/93, arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No.17/93. 12. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged.